The reasonable course of action is to pick one of the three rewrites that codify a proposed interpretation of the currently ambiguous rules. What would be unre

The reasonable course of action is to pick one of the three rewrites that codify a proposed interpretation of the currently ambiguous rules. What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way. I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.